# Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2014, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472 "2014-05-02T00:00:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/621 "2014-05-07T17:07:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > “Inferior” only makes sense wham you apply a metric to something. If the metric is “inclusiveness”, then a situation where SSM is a reality is superior to one that excludes it. If the metric is “traditional”, then a scenario that includes SSM is inferior. Your metric was “cornerstone of our civilization”. Applying your own metric, you’re concerned about a “future where there are fewer married OS couples having and raising children”, which “is not a good thing”. So, by the metric you hold up as the one that matters, is same-sex marriage not inferior? > [@](#): > > The analogy was only brought up to demonstrate that diluting something with another thing makes no value judgments about each of the items in the abstract. The two justices are different. Adding one to the other dilutes it—makes it less what it was. That depends on the nature of what the items are, does it not? Adding Quaker State to Valvoline still gives you motor oil. I submit that this is more applicable to committed, long-term heterosexual and homosexual relationships; they are far more alike than different. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/622 "2014-05-07T17:10:42Z")
The thing is, when you add a glass of pineapple to a glass of orange you’re left with one thing of juice. What we’re really talking about here is not combining the two, but leaving them in separate glasses, but _calling_ both juice. And that gets right to the heart of it, I think – **magellan** looks at it as mixing or muddling or watering down or whatever, but nothing’s been mixed from my perspective. It doesn’t seem, from where I’m sitting, that calling a new thing a marriage would act to change my perception of what a man/woman marriage is. From my perspective, a man/woman marriage remains a pure, unadulterated marriage even if I think about there also being a woman/woman marriage, in the same way that even though I don’t necessarily _imagine_ two one-hundred-year-olds when I imagine a bride and groom, I don’t think that the marriage of two twenty-five-year-olds is cheapened or adulterated or affected in any way by the marriage of the older couple. I’ll even go so far as to say that the idea of two centenarians getting married is really weird to me and makes me uncomfortable if I think about it too hard. It has almost nothing in common with what I imagine to be a “normal” marriage. Still, if they’re married, they’re married, from my perspective. And when two fresh-faced and able-bodied and -genitaled young paragons of virtue get married, their marriage retains all the symbolic significance it ever would have. That’s how you feel about it, too, right? From my perspective a gay marriage is the same (as far as the conclusion goes, I mean). It’s clear that you don’t view it that way, **magellan** , but does it make sense to you that because that’s the way I see it, I literally can’t come up with a reason why a gay marriage affects the – the “purity” or the “meaning” or the “orange juiceness” or whatever non-judgmental word you’d like to use to articulate what the change is – of what you or I imagines as a “normal” marriage? I don’t see where there’s any “mixing” going on any more than all the other changes the institution has survived. When a man and a woman get married, I call that a marriage. When they do it fifteen years from now, I’ll call it that then. Why will it mean anything different? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/623 "2014-05-07T17:10:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Possibly. For now. But the institution people contemplate entering will no longer have the symbolism in once did. Now, some no doubt think that a good think, as it is more inclusive. But that just proves the point that the symbolism that the institution, and the word used to describe it, has had is being altered. Right, and so far no one has come up with a reason it’s a “bad thing.” It’s still (in theory) a lifetime commitment with significant legal and social consequences. Many people over the past few decades have questioned the value of the institution for various reasons. More people are “living together” without marriage, and others are waiting longer to get married. Lots of people get divorced. All of this, however, happened years before SSM was even a thing. I’ve never heard any heterosexual express any reservation about getting married because the institution has become more inclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/624 "2014-05-07T17:11:03Z")
What if you add lemonade to iced tea? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/625 "2014-05-07T17:12:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, even with the subsequent explanation you glom onto my use of the word “weaken”, which I used again in my revised analogy? :rolleyes: Wow, so you really are at a loss for a substantive rebuttal. So tell me, which is inferior, pineapple juice or orange juice? You know, it doesn’t really matter how many times you revise your analogy. You can’t make a bigoted idea non-bigoted just by dressing it up in different words. Here’s the problem with your analogy. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with either water, or orange juice, they do have some pretty distinct qualities. If I want something sweet, tangy, with lots of pulp in it, I want orange juice. If I add water to it, I’m getting less of those qualities I find desirable in orange juice, because water doesn’t have any of those qualities. I assume we’re all on the same page so far, right? So, let’s apply that analogy to marriage. Marriage has a set of qualities - let’s just call them X, Y, and Z - that make marriage something valuable. If letting gays get married dilutes marriage, then it **must** be because gays lack some or all of those qualities. And that’s where your argument turns into simple bigotry, because there is no answer to that question that doesn’t disparage homosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/626 "2014-05-07T17:13:48Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Okay. Marriage, as traditionally entered into by a man and a woman, is orange juice. > Allowing SSM is like adding pineapple juice. Or water. Whatever. Since gays of the sort who are out enough to marry same-sex partners are around 4% of the US population ([cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States)), you’re looking at one part pineapple juice to 24 parts orange juice. > > So you would barely even be able to taste the difference, if at all, and therefore there’s no reason to reject SSM as part of the expanding definition of marriage. Hell, the FDA would still let you call it orange juice, though I’m not offended if you want to reserve that special term (“heterosexual marriage”) for Mr. and Mrs. Orange. You can just call it “juice” (“marriage”) when us pineapples are thrown in, and we won’t mind. So you agree that it does change it, just not to a degree that you would consider significant. Okay. But would you grant that some changes in degree can result in significant changes in result. How about if you like your coffee black and add it that way and a barista gives it to you with a little cream in it? How about if a someone chooses to remain a virgin until marriage? having sex just that once is no biggie, right? The fact is that either marriage stands for the traditional coming together of man and woman or it doesn’t. SSM is one change. The desire for some to enter into polygamous marriages would be another. > [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Great analogy! Thanks! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/627 "2014-05-07T17:14:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If this is the best you can do Well, let’s review. You won’t answer questions, you won’t explain your own views, and your remaining argument is a Seinfeldian ‘SSM weakens marriage… _not that there’s anything wrong with that_.’ Whatever my best is, I don’t think it’s required here. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/628 "2014-05-07T17:16:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, Mr. Pot, you can go jump in a lake. Translate that whichever way you’d wish. I’m debating here in good faith. We’ve been down this very road before. It was unproductive, even after I painstakingly explained what Separate but Equal meant and explained in detail why my idea does not run afoul of it. I thought this might be helpful as far as understanding each other. But I forgot that it would require you do do the unthinkable: answer a fucking question yourself. > > You seem to be under the impression that I am here to simply answer your questions but no similar requirement falls to you. Like I said, go jump in a lake. Translate with Caligula-esque imagination. I’m changing this from a note to a warning, magellan. That ‘T-ball’ thing in post 620 is a bit much combined with everything else. You’re addressing the poster and not the post. Don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/629 "2014-05-07T17:18:48Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Your metric was “cornerstone of our civilization”. Applying your own metric, you’re concerned about a “future where there are fewer married OS couples having and raising children”, which “is not a good thing”. > > So, by the metric you hold up as the one that matters, is same-sex marriage not inferior? If the metric is “has been the cornerstone of civilization”, SSM is not even inferior, it doesn’t register on the scale at all. Since it has not been part of your history it neither can be said to have contributed to it nor diminished that which has been the cornerstone of society. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > That depends on the nature of what the items are, does it not? Adding Quaker State to Valvoline still gives you motor oil. I submit that this is more applicable to committed, long-term heterosexual and homosexual relationships; they are far more alike than different. And that is one valid way to look at it. It doesn’t invalidate my view. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/630 "2014-05-07T17:23:28Z")
I would like to state, for the record, that I don’t like orange juice. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/631 "2014-05-07T17:29:46Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > What if you add lemonade to iced tea? Are you saying that Arnold Palmer is gay? Anyway, the NJ highest court has basically ruled that marriage and civil unions are not the same, since federal benefits that accrue to married couples don’t accrue to those who were civil unioned. So, saying that people who are married and those who are civil unioned are equal is not true, and that the differences are separate and unequal. So, you can’t have the same set of laws but with different names. At least in NJ, that doesn’t work. I got your QED right here (as they say in NJ). In any case, since SSM has now been legal for years in many states and many countries, none of the doomsaying about the institution of marriage becoming more pineapply makes sense anymore. It’s possible that you could make that argument a few decades ago, but now the evidence is in, and all is well, even though you’ve got your peanut butter into my chocolate (to mix metaphors). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/632 "2014-05-07T17:32:10Z")
[Alabama Chief Justice states reasons to oppose SSM.](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/05/alabama-chief-justice-wants-new-constitution-to-protect-the-original-from-gays-ruth-ginsburg/) On the minus side, this guy is a raving loon. On the plus side, it gives hope to thousands of other loons looking to get jobs in the judiciary branch of the government. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/633 "2014-05-07T17:32:47Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I would like to state, for the record, that I don’t like orange juice. Freak. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/634 "2014-05-07T17:34:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Freak. Ummm, every once in a while I like to “put a little pineapple juice in my orange juice”, if you know what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/635 "2014-05-07T17:36:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You know, it doesn’t really matter how many times you revise your analogy. You can’t make a bigoted idea non-bigoted just by dressing it up in different words. > > Here’s the problem with your analogy. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with either water, or orange juice, they do have some pretty distinct qualities. If I want something sweet, tangy, with lots of pulp in it, I want orange juice. If I add water to it, I’m getting less of those qualities I find desirable in orange juice, because water doesn’t have any of those qualities. > > I assume we’re all on the same page so far, right? > > So, let’s apply that analogy to marriage. Marriage has a set of qualities - let’s just call them X, Y, and Z - that make marriage something valuable. If letting gays get married dilutes marriage, then it **must** be because gays lack some or all of those qualities. And that’s where your argument turns into simple bigotry, because there is no answer to that question that doesn’t disparage homosexuals. I appreciate this post, even though you still seem to tautologically employ charges of bigotry. Oh, well. That aside, let’s focus on the last paragraph. I would say that it is not the case that “gays” lack something, but if the metric is “marriage”, then gay relationships do indeed fall short, by not being comprised of the necessary components: a man and a woman. Now, you are free to feel that that is being overly restrictive, and for you, I’m sure that’s the case. But I, as you know, hold a more traditional view of marriage, one with centuries and centuries of western history to support it. A history, I will add, that has zero instances any society embracing SSM—and that includes those that were famously embracing of homosexuality. You might even accuse me of employing a tautology of sorts. And I’d admit to it. For me, a marriage is necessarily constituted of a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. This notion of two husbands and two wives is other worldly. They exist in only in places where there is up but no down, yin but no yang. Now, you or someone else can _choose_ to be disparaged by that, but that is your choice. But I see that akin to me feeling disparaged by an NBA team telling me that I’m not tall enough. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/636 "2014-05-07T17:38:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [Alabama Chief Justice states reasons to oppose SSM.](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/05/alabama-chief-justice-wants-new-constitution-to-protect-the-original-from-gays-ruth-ginsburg/) > On the minus side, this guy is a raving loon. > On the plus side, it gives hope to thousands of other loons looking to get jobs in the judiciary branch of the government. I’m completely on board with this: > [@](#): > > “It’s not about two men getting married or two women, it’s about destroying an institution ordained of God, it’s about feeling good but ignoring God’s laws for happiness for civilization for progress as the United States Supreme Court recognizes,” he said. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/637 "2014-05-07T17:48:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You might even accuse me of employing a tautology of sorts. And I’d admit to it. It’s good that you acknowledge it, but it’s not a tautology _of sorts_. It’s a tautology: the definition of marriage is a man and a woman because that’s the definition of marriage. The question then becomes “why can’t marriage be defined another way?” Pointing out that marriage has never until recently been defined in this particular way doesn’t answer that question. The issue is possibility, not history. That’s typically where the false assertions like “marriage has always been this” and “historically this has always been the most important aspect of a marriage” come in. > [@](#): > > Now, you or someone else can _choose_ to be disparaged by that, but that is your choice. This is mere passive-aggressiveness. You’re entitled to an opinion, but you don’t get to dictate how other people how can feel about your opinion. If you think your opinion is the right one regardless of whether or not people are insulted, say ‘I’m sorry you’re insulted, but that’s how I feel.’ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/638 "2014-05-07T17:49:47Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I’m changing this from a note to a warning, magellan. That ‘T-ball’ thing in post 620 is a bit much combined with everything else. You’re addressing the poster and not the post. > > Don’t do it again. First of all, the first note was unnecessary. Second, I wrote the other post before you wrote your first one. I’ll leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/639 "2014-05-07T17:58:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If the metric is “has been the cornerstone of civilization”, SSM is not even inferior, it doesn’t register on the scale at all. Since it has not been part of your history it neither can be said to have contributed to it nor diminished that which has been the cornerstone of society. Let’s go with “ **is** a cornerstone of our civilization.” Given that: a) You view opposite-sex marriage as a cornerstone, and b) you view same-sex marriage as a threat to that cornerstone, and c) you therefore oppose same-sex marriage, it obviously follows that you value opposite-sex marriage more highly, to the point of prohibiting same-sex marriage in order to protect it. Correct? > [@magellon01](#): > > And that is one valid way to look at it. It doesn’t invalidate my view. Correct? No; what’d objectively invalidate your view would be evidence that same-sex marriage had no deleterious effect on opposite-sex marriages, agreed? This is to set aside the countless subjective arguments that could be made either way. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472/640 "2014-05-07T18:08:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Possibly. For now. But the institution people contemplate entering will no longer have the symbolism in once did. Now, some no doubt think that a good think, as it is more inclusive. But that just proves the point that the symbolism that the institution, and the word used to describe it, has had is being altered. You do go on, repeatedly, to claim that this change (assuming we accept your claim that it is one) is a \*bad \*thing, remarkably, even though all the testimony on that aspect is to the opposite. Is that because, to you, \*any \*change is bad? We’d still be living in caves and hunting mastodons if we followed \*that \*rule. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-gay-marriage-debate-over/687472.md?page=33)